Exploitative political leaders

Governance failures mean that we have not been able to work out meaningful means of intervention to mitigate human sufferings, and bring hope to those who are systematically oppressed and marginalized. Inefficient, exploitive, incompetent, or abusive national authority structures have impaired the economic well being, violated the basic human rights, and created security traps for populations. Local governments within confines of conventional sovereignty which emphasises on autonomy and international recognition have legitimized their monopoly of exploiting resources and people. The fundamental rules of conventional sovereignty manipulated by abusive political leaders are not functioning anymore. While there is a growing initiative on humanitarian interventions, there is little corresponding study of international policies to address exploitive authorities. There must be a focus on how best international orgs can intervene, had there been an international system of containment to curb abuse of power, and sustain more meaningful international commitment to defend basic rights of people.


The state has a role to play in providing public goods such as education and health services as well as in reflecting the political and social values through good governance. This is translated in to establishing environment and institutions that impede systematic corruption that undermines accountability. Good governance is seen not just necessary condition for wellbeing and economic development but also new concerns for democratic participation, social justice and accountability. Research utilizing a comprehensive governance database of 200 countries shows that, higher national incomes per capita result from improving governance, rule of law, and corruption control (World Bank, 2006). Yet, capacities to govern must be developed; capacities related to setting strategic direction, building capacity to implement policy, and building new ways of financing public goods and services. Governments must take responsibility for providing essential services that are free or heavily subsidised for poor people and geared to the needs of all citizens (Oxfam GB,2005). Civil society organisations and non profit private entities need to develop capacity for participatory intervention to tackle shortcomings. In democratic systems, governments are accountable to the people because the citizens are the original power holders who delegate authority temporarily and over certain specific issues to the government. However unless people get engaged, raise their awareness, meaningfully participate and develop capacity to solve social problems the power vacuum will be hijacked by more aggressive and often abusive power players. Good governance mainly is about fair allocation of resources, education and health for citizens to find ground for flourishing. Oxfam research found that teachers’ salaries in least developed countries have halved since 1970. And there are not enough of these dedicated individuals as populations grow disproportionately. In order to provide basic health care and education for all, the world needs 4.25 million more health workers and 1.9 million more trained teachers (Oxfam GB, 2006).

In the last decade, self-governing public institutions have multiplied to hold governments accountable in different areas, such as corruption control bodies, independent electoral institutes, auditing agencies, human rights Ombudsmen, and Public Prosecutors. In Latin America, in Asia, Africa, Australia and Eastern Europe countries have all created or revived one or more such independent institutions. Another indicator of this trend is that over 80 countries currently have a national Ombudsman while only a dozen had one only 20 years ago (Bennett, 1997). However, the accountability of their performance varies widely while there are as many cases that merely serve to help governments avoid accountability as there are those who strengthen government accountability. States that experience poor governance and are not accountable to their own people tend to co-conspire with power abusers to sustain their sovereignty. They loose interest in winning their own constituencies. Weak governing structures that lost the support of people, are confronting endemic violence, exploitative political leaders, and even state sponsored genocide.

Humanitarian disasters exacerbated by abusive political leaders have disturbing impact on the conscience of international community; and leave them with no other choice but a workable military intervention to stop inhuman conflicts, mostly ethnic or racial based, which have affected and raised security risks. The persistent misuse of arms by state law forces can itself be a significant contributing factor in undermining development, because economic actors lose confidence in the justice sector and look for safe havens. Where small arms are widely misused, potential business investors may well look elsewhere for a more secure environment in which to invest their capital. Promoting the rule of law, protection of property rights, freedom of the press, political competition, and transparency in general, and in politics in particular (such as in campaign finance) is vital to sustain development (World Bank, 2006).

Mechanisms to allow citizens to have an effective voice are important to institutionalize good governance. The denial of people's right to influence decision makers has been a central cause of suffering in the world. NGOs and humanitarian agencies are in difficult situation for interfering in conflicts where it requires utmost impartiality. This is particularly important for justification of international agencies’ intervention that although familiar with local meanings could act quite neutral. However, if authorities want to violate, marginalise and impoverish people, then humanitarian workers are not particularly well placed to stop them since protection activities will be working against the intentions of the legal or de facto groups perpetrating these abuses. Humanitarian personnel will be seen more as a threat than an ally by such exploitive authorities.

In any case, humanitarian crises and deeply felt human rights issues have engaged electorates in advanced democracies and created no win situations for political leaders who try to keep their hands clean and avoid criticism. And, attempts by stronger countries to interfere in the human rights abuse cases, they are confronted with the governments justifications such as national sovereignty, as a means of subjugating their population even further. The extent that local government conspire against their people under the excuse of domestic sovereignty in states is astounding. Conventional sovereignty is now the only fully legitimated institutional form but, unfortunately, conventional sovereignty is abused by local authoritarian rulers. Some leaders will find exploitation of their own populations more justified to secure their presence in the office rather than the introduction of reforms. Any attempt by international actors to eliminate abuse will be contested and constrained.

Increasing demands and lack of planning and resources severely aggravated transition period in the path toward reform. If we are serious about exerting good governance, the transitional administration has to be sincere about human rights monitoring, election processes, disarmament and demobilization of armed forces, and protection of humanitarian relief workers. Alternatively, local leaders need to strike a balance between external and internal support that is provided for them to make changes. Civil society, the media, Parliament, the judiciary and the private sector must be involved in a participatory way, with full voice and empowerment to institutionalise good governance. While their efforts to establish institutional arrangement for good governance would provide a new choice.